Ben Recht actually has a line of work showing that we aren't over fitting the validation/test set for now (amazingly...). What I mean is, by chasing higher and higher SotA with more and more money and compute, whole fields can go "improving" only for papers like https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.08505 or "Implementation matters in deep RL" to come out and show that what's going on is different from the literature consensus. The standards for showing improvement are low, while standards for négative résultats are high (I'm a bit biased because I have a rejected paper trying to show empirically some deep RL work didn't add marginal value but I think the case still holds). Everyone involved is trying their best to do good science but unless someone like me asks for it, there simply isn't a value add for your career to do exhaustive checking.

A concrete improvement would be only being allowed to change 1 thing at a time per paper, and measure the impact of changing that one thing. But then you couldn't realistically publish anything outside of megacorps. Another solution might be banning corporate papers, or at least making a separate track...from reviewing papers, it seems like single authors or small teams in academia need to compete with Google where multiple teams might share aspects of a project, one doing the architecture, the other a new training algorithm etc...which won't be disclosed, you'll just read a paper where for some reason a novel architecture is introduced using a baseline which is a bit exotic but also used in another paper that came out close to this one, and a regulariser which was introduced just before that ...

If you limit the pools, you can put much higher standards on experiments on corporate where you have the budget, while giving academia more points for novelty and creativity